Hey there monkeys,
About a week ago I read a thread on WSO about the GMAT: How I got a 770 on the GMAT . . . whitecollarandsuspenders version
The comments section had a quite interesting common topic that it was touching on: GMAT Score Inflation.
Most of the monkeys here probably already know this, but I'm going to mention it anyway for clarification:
You can retake the GMAT up to 5 times in any 12-month period, but no more than once in any 16-day period. You can request to GMAC in writing if you want to take it more than that, but applications are only considered after you have actually taken the 5th test.
This practically means that there are virtually unlimited tries for a candidate to take the GMAT test. As @Pmc2ghy mentioned in the previous thread, it's crazy how people just have to invest more time and money until they get their ideal score for B-school admission.
The thing is, as you retake and retake it again, your score is expected to rise. This may seem obvious but it's actually backed by statistical data.
This Poets & Quants Article shows that the overall average gain was 33 points.
While this Economist article shows how the ""average score at an MBA program ranked in The Economist's top ten in the year 2000 was 688 out of a possible 800. In 2014 it was 722."
The key takeaway: Quality of MBA students in 2000 and 2014 hasn't changed. A score of 722 buys you no more today than a score of 688 would have 14 years ago. However, this may be a little bit hard to accept. After all, getting a 722 vs a 688 could be all the difference that you need to get into that M7.
This brings up a question: Is it really worth it to retake a $250 test for that possibility of a better score? And in what ways do these scores actually represent your intelligence and aptitude for an MBA program?